In a remarkable new post-trial motion, Samsung has laid out its strategy to get the $1.05 billion verdict against it kicked out. The boldest maneuver? A straightforward attack on the patent-owning jury foreman.

The Korean company hinted at this tactic in an earlier, redacted brief, but now it's been laid out in full, with more than a dozen exhibits attached showcasing Hogan's allegedly offending public statements. The company's lawyers have clearly had time now to comb through the multiple interviews foreman Velvin Hogan has offered since the trial in order to find the juiciest tidbits.

His legal misstatements have been picked apart by Samsung lawyers, who noted he said design patents are based on "look and feel," and that prior art must be "interchangeable" in order to invalidate a patent. "These incorrect and extraneous legal standards had no place in the jury room," wrote Samsung in its brief.

More significantly, the brief notes that Hogan disclosed being involved in only one lawsuit—failing to mention that he was sued by his former employer Seagate Technology, a company owned in part by Samsung. That lawsuit, which demanded Hogan pay back certain house payments that Seagate had assisted him with, ultimately caused Hogan and his wife to file for bankruptcy. "Mr. Hogan’s failure to disclose the Seagate suit raises issues of bias that Samsung should have been allowed to explore in questioning and that would have triggered a motion to strike for cause or a peremptory strike," write Samsung lawyers.

Samsung also suggests that Hogan didn't disclose how pro-patent he was when asked in court whether he had "strong feelings" about the US patent system. The new motion argues that Hogan's silence didn't sync up with his later statements to The Verge that "except for my family, it [jury service] was the high point of my career... you might even say my life," and that he wanted to be satisfied "that this trial was fair, and protected copyrights and intellectual property rights, no matter who they belonged to."

The company actually suggests that Hogan come back for an additional hearing with all the other jurors, because his "conduct during voir dire [jury selection] and jury deliberations must be fully examined." The only solution is a new trial, Samsung argues.

When asked yesterday about Samsung's new accusations of dishonesty, Hogan claimed he'd disclosed everything he should have. He told a Bloomberg reporter that the court's instructions required him to disclose litigation in the last 10 years, and he was sued by Seagate back in 1993. “Had I been asked an open-ended question with no time constraint, of course I would’ve disclosed that,” said Hogan, adding that “I answered every question the judge asked me... [Samsung] had every opportunity to question me."

In addition to the arguments about Hogan, Samsung has a lot of other post-trial arguments which seem pretty run-of-the-mill and probably have little chance of succeeding. For instance, Samsung argues that no reasonable jury could have found Apple's patents valid; but if the judge had seen a problem that big with Apple's case, she could have stopped the trial altogether.

Perhaps more realistically, Samsung also asks to sharply reduce the $1.05 billion in damages it has been slapped with. For example, Samsung argues the damages for design patent infringement should be dropped by more than 95%, since "just 5% of respondents to a J.D. Power study identify visual appeal as why they purchased a phone." Even on this front, though, Samsung's arguments are similar to ones already presented during trial.

362 Reader Comments

have you or a family member or someone very close to you ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness?

How the fuck does anyone answer this honestly and completely?

I have no idea if any of my family members have ever been involved in a lawsuit and since many people are bitching about the open-endedness, how far back do we go back in family? I'm fairly sure that our court are slow enough without juror trying to dig thru decades of lawsuits.

Regardless, don't Samsung's lawyers have access to Lexis-Nexus, couldn't they have logged on, typed in the guys name and pulled up all lawsuits with him listed? Hell, they could have done this after the trial started and brought it to the judge. "Hey the foreman of the jury was sued into bankruptcy by a company that our client is a major stakeholder in. We view this as a potential conflict of interest and would like a replacement."

Isn't this why lawyers are paid assloads of money? To do simple shit like research?

And Samsung searching the public records would not have revealed the bankruptcy, because it's been expunged.I doubt that Quinn Emanuel would have remembered Mr. Hogan, though ...

Bankruptcy cases don't get expunged; that's for criminal matters. Bankruptcies do fall off "your record" after a period of time (7 to 10 years ... I forget exactly) but if they were expunged they would legally have never happened. That would defeat the purpose. That case would have been on the record, still.

All I can say is if Samsung does get a new trial they should consider upgrading their lawyers to something better then the law firm of Larry, Moe and Curly.

This is what I think their biggest issue is, when I feel like I can personally bring a better case in my spare time then there is something wrong with their arguments.

Well no matter who the attorneys are you will always feel you could bring a better case. You aren't tied down by those pesky F.R.E.s that attorneys are. In fact you often see clients get frustrated with attorneys for not making the case as well as they think they should.

And Samsung searching the public records would not have revealed the bankruptcy, because it's been expunged.I doubt that Quinn Emanuel would have remembered Mr. Hogan, though ...

Bankruptcy cases don't get expunged; that's for criminal matters. Bankruptcies do fall off "your record" after a period of time (7 to 10 years ... I forget exactly) but if they were expunged they would legally have never happened. That would defeat the purpose. That case would have been on the record, still.

Well they tend hire Jury Consultant firms for that..However reading through these comments it seems like most people feel that these attorneys can just strike down an unlimited number of people from the selection. This isn't the case. In fact when they do strike down potential jurists they strike the ones that they will have a harder time trying to argue against which is why giving truthful and full answer during Voire Dire is so important.

have you or a family member or someone very close to you ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness?

How the fuck does anyone answer this honestly and completely?

I have no idea if any of my family members have ever been involved in a lawsuit and since many people are bitching about the open-endedness, how far back do we go back in family? I'm fairly sure that our court are slow enough without juror trying to dig thru decades of lawsuits.

You answer to the best of your knowledge. My answer to that question, it would be "Yes, several times" and then one would presume they would ask about them. Answering only with a single case when clearly, from the question, they want a reasonably complete history, seems pretty disingenuous to me.

All I can say is if Samsung does get a new trial they should consider upgrading their lawyers to something better then the law firm of Larry, Moe and Curly.

This is what I think their biggest issue is, when I feel like I can personally bring a better case in my spare time then there is something wrong with their arguments.

Well no matter who the attorneys are you will always feel you could bring a better case. You aren't tied down by those pesky F.R.E.s that attorneys are. In fact you often see clients get frustrated with attorneys for not making the case as well as they think they should.

Yeah. IANAL but, as a tech consultant, I see the same shit a fair amount. I especially like the "Can you come fix this problem? It shouldn't take more than half an hour." Uh huh, and you know this how?

Why amateurs so often think they could do a better job than professionals is beyond me.

M-CAM called this in August...to learn more about Velvin Hogan’s erroneous actions, check out the Patently Obvious report entitled, “In the jury of the blind, Velvin Hogan is King”: http://www.bit.ly/Ru6z6q

All I can say is if Samsung does get a new trial they should consider upgrading their lawyers to something better then the law firm of Larry, Moe and Curly.

This is what I think their biggest issue is, when I feel like I can personally bring a better case in my spare time then there is something wrong with their arguments.

Well no matter who the attorneys are you will always feel you could bring a better case. You aren't tied down by those pesky F.R.E.s that attorneys are. In fact you often see clients get frustrated with attorneys for not making the case as well as they think they should.

Yeah. IANAL but, as a tech consultant, I see the same shit a fair amount. I especially like the "Can you come fix this problem? It shouldn't take more than half an hour." Uh huh, and you know this how?

Why amateurs so often think they could do a better job than professionals is beyond me.

Well that explains why I tend to agree with many of your posts. We have something in common.

To those bashing Samsung for screening, I’m not sure it is in Samsung’s favor to weed out the liars ahead of time. It is better to catch them afterwards if/when the verdict does not go your way so you can get the verdict thrown out or at least change the terms. Smart play, Samsung

Just what I was thinking.

~~~~~~~~~~A sly rabbit will have three openings to its den.{Chinese Proverb}

Uh, the word "EVER" is pretty clear. It is obvious to any native English speaker, at least int he US, that sentence means this: "HAVE YOU OR A FAMILY MEMBER OR SOMEONE VERY CLOSE TO YOU (AT ANY TIME) BEEN INVOLVED IN A LAWSUIT, EITHER AS A PLAINTIFF, A DEFENDANT, OR AS A WITNESS?" Perhaps "ever" means something different in some other language of place but it is completely unambiguous in the US. Here, let Google tell you, if you don't know how to use a dictionary.

Well done, you've established that 'ever' refers to an open-ended time frame. Gold star for that. When you've finished your celebrations, you can join the rest of the class and start thinking about the difference between timeframe and quantity.

I'll give you a helping hand to get you started:Alice, Bob, and Charlie were all involved in lawsuits in different years. Alice in 1982; Bob in 2004; Charlie in both 1982 and 2004. If a judge asks if anyone was involved in a lawsuit in the last 15 years, both Bob and Charlie would to answer yes. If the judge asked if anyone had ever been involved, everyone would have to say yes. In neither case would the wording require that anyone disclose how many lawsuits as ever simply governs the timeframe, not the quantity. Hence people who harp on aout '10 years' have a valid point (in the absence of further evidence), whereas those harping on about lies of omission have a somewhat harder case to make.

According to Wikipedia, Samsung connected with Seagate in 2011 when they did a stock deal to buy Samsung's hard drive business. So Samsung's involvement with Seagate was almost 20 years after this guy Hogan got into legal difficulties with Seagate.

However, it's not just that. Not only is Samsung the largest shareholder in Seagate, but the lawyer who sued Hogan, leading to his bankruptcy, has a link to this case.

From Groklaw:

"The lawyer who sued Mr. Hogan on behalf of Seagate back in 1993 is now married to a partner at Quinn Emanuel, the lawyers for Samsung."

If you read the transcript, Hogan was asked to declare all lawsuits he has been involved in (there was no 10 year time limit for disclosure as he claims). Had he declared that one, he would have been struck from the jury for sure. Even a cursory check by Samsung's lawyers would have found the link between their firm and that lawsuit, and the link between Samsung and Seagate would have been a concern.

From Groklaw's analysis, there is no doubt the foreman was misleading during voir dire and is now being misleading about what he was asked.

Also, his conduct in media interviews has been of concern. During voir dire he was asked if he had strong feelings about the patent system, and did not disclose anything. Since then, he has stated in media interviews that he drew upon his personal experiences with the patent system to come to his conclusion, and being able to do so was high point of his life. That just doesn't mesh with his non-diclosure of an interest in the patent system.

Samsung have a real point, and Hogan could be in trouble... unless there is something wrong with the court transcript.

When asked if he'd ever been involved in litigation, he (effectively) claimed he hadn't. (This was done by asking the prospective jurors to raise their hands, and explain the suit they were involved with. Hogan didn't raise his hand, effectively claiming that the suit never occurred.) By claiming the suit didn't happen, he's basically set himself into a position where he actually wanted to be on the jury. He's backed that up in interviews, claiming that serving on the jury was "the high point of... my life."

He wanted to be on the jury, and he lied to get there. And now we have a motive. How can we possibly assume he wasn't biased.

What are you, high? He did raise his card and he discussed a lawsuit he was involved in over a patent in 2008. It's all right there and has been directly linked and text copied into this discussion. Also, what motive do we have? Seagate and Samsung are not parent and child companies and Samsung did not own their share of Seagate in 1993.

He didn't raise a hand on the 1993 suit, and then claimed that there was a ten year time limit. The absolute best you can say on the subject is he applied his personal understanding of the law (that because the bankruptcy only lasted ten years, the judge was only asking for legal actions in the last ten years (and that is a bit of a stretch)) to the courtroom. Beyond that he deliberately concealed the litigation from the court, when asked. And public statements jury members made after the trial admit they were going for punitive damages, when they were specifically ordered not to. As others have pointed out, secondary costs associated with a bankruptcy tend to linger for far longer then just 10 years. Combine that with how proud he was to be on the jury, and his deliberate choice to ignore the jury instructions, and it's pretty damn hard to ignore that he had a motive.

trrll wrote:

It's not clear where the "10 years" came from. Perhaps he simply misremembered, or perhaps prospective jurors were given some sort of written questionnaire to fill out in advance.

At a guess, and this is only a guess, it probably comes from the bankruptcy. He would have been told that would stay on his record for 10 years, and it is possible that he brought that understanding into the courtroom. And it is consistent with him bringing his own understanding of prior art to deliberations.

trrll wrote:

It's fairly easy to see why Samsung's lawyers chose not to challenge him as a juror, even if they subsequently found out on their own about his earlier legal disputes (as was likely the case, since it was a matter of public record). He was a defendant, after all, and might reasonably be sympathetic toward the defendant in this case--i.e. Samsung.

Alternately, assuming they did discover this outside of court, not saying anything would let them pull the trigger and force a retrial if it went against them. Which brings us right back to today.

And Samsung searching the public records would not have revealed the bankruptcy, because it's been expunged.I doubt that Quinn Emanuel would have remembered Mr. Hogan, though ...

Bankruptcy cases don't get expunged; that's for criminal matters. Bankruptcies do fall off "your record" after a period of time (7 to 10 years ... I forget exactly) but if they were expunged they would legally have never happened. That would defeat the purpose. That case would have been on the record, still.

It might vary from state to state. But, at least in this case, it dropped off after 10 years. Though I can't remember the citation on that, sorry.

To those questioning whether he could hold a grudge for 19 years, remember that bankruptcy stays on your credit report for 10 years. After that 10 years, you essentially have a massive gap in your credit report, where lenders wonder why you don't have many loans for the past 10 years. Arguably, the guy could still be feeling the effects 15 years after filing, especially when you consider the high interest rates he's had to pay because of it. He also probably went through at least a year or two of debt collection/lawsuit hell before it got to bankruptcy. It's an extremely traumatic experience. 15+ years of financial torment is plenty of time to sow the seeds of a grudge that will last a lifetime.

And to make things even worse, what happened 15 years after he lost his house to bankruptcy? The housing market collapsed! Honestly, I don't see why people are trying to brush this away as no big deal just because it happened a while ago. This is pretty huge!

But it's not even the most damning allegation, which comes from the guy's own words - all the inaccurate things he claimed about patents in interviews shows a jurer who failed to understand the case he was brought to decide. That's REALLY BAD. And honestly - juries SHOULD NOT BE DECIDING PATENT VALIDITY IN THE FIRST PLACE! That's why this whole system is broken!!

We all know Apple's lawsuits are a joke and no reasonable judge or jury would ever uphold them, or even let come to trial. Then add the fact that the judge suppressed all evidence that would've favored Samsung, and the jury ignored any Samsung patents.

But the fact is an American jury and judicial system is not going to vote against Apple. This case should be dismissed, Samsung awarded damages for the mistrial, and have an impartial entity decide the case.

Excuse his behaviour? Don't know what gave you that idea. I think he's an attention-seeking idiot, especially given the way he's acted since the trial ended and some of his answers seem somewhat dodgy. I'm just not convinced that

Quote:

Really? the court is who gets to decides on court cases? Amazing

I know, it must come as quite a surprise to all those commentators who've already reached a verdict and begun prognosticating about sentencing.

Quote:

Fact is you have Hogan on record that he would have presented all facts but was only asked for last 10 years.Fact is we have Transcript asking for any court case, ever and making no 10 year distinction.

You have him answering in an interview some time after the trial about a detail that may not have seemed significant to him at a time when he had plenty of other facts to take in and analyse. It would be foolish to read too much into it. Besides which, what have said has been concerned primarily with Koh's instructions in the transcript, not Hogan's flawed recollection later.

Quote:

What is distasteful is you trying to argue this Hogan has not cast doubt on the verdict

Have you been dreaming about this discussion? Because I certainly haven't argued that in the real world. I disagree with the accusation the he committed a lie of omission, but that's a far cry from arguing that he hasn't case doubt on the verdict.

Quote:

As aforementioned what exactly is the oath you are asked to take when taking the stand in court?"The truth the whole truth etc"You have Hogan himself stating he would have mentioned the bankruptcy case, had there not been this 10 year distinction. Yet we have transcripts making no such distinction. I mention this again since it seems not to stick/ somehow is irrelevant to you.

You're putting too much weight on an interview well after the fact and also failing to consider what is the truth that was being asked for? Did Judge Koh ask for a history of lawsuits? If not, then not disclosing every lawsuit is not a failure to tell the whole truth.

Quote:

In the real world "mistakes" and "misunderstandings" when it comes to multi million/billion $$$ simply does not cut it and gets you thrown out with the trash. Especially with Hogan's history and makes a case for mistrial.

Yes, that's why trials are decided by what goes on in a court, not what is recollected later in an interview. Not recalling the facts correctly isn't the same as making a mistake or telling a lie in the trial itself. The transcript is far more important than the interview.

Quote:

You and Mr. Hogan used this red herring to justify the withholding of facts which would have jeopardised Mr. Hogan's position on the Jury.

If that's true, then you'll have no problems finding a comment where I use the ten year quote to defend Mr Hogan. If you discover that I never said any such thing, then perhaps you'll have a better appreciation of the possibility that people remember things wrong.

Incidentally I haven't justified the withholding of facts, I've argued that they weren't asked for in the first place.

Quote:

Evidently what happens outside court can also have tremendous bearing as in Samsungs case for a multi-million dollar mistrial.

Nothing is evident yet. We're far from a hearing let along a verdict. What Samsung thinks is important is not yet evidently so.

Quote:

Grammar? what you are arguing is semantics.

True. Not that it makes any difference to the substance of the argument.

PS: If Samsung really wanted to end Apple tomorrow, all they have to do is to stop supplying them with essential A4, A5, A5X and A6 CPUs. Now who's vulnerable here?

Breach of contract usually doesn't need a jury trial. It's pretty clear cut and the judge would smack the living crap out of Samsung. That would be a very stupid move for Samsung to make. It could also serve to make otehr companies leery fo working w/Samsung, b/c they woudl view it as if they piss off Samsung, they won't respect your contracts. That's no way to run a business. Your name appears to be well chosen

Are you saying that Samsung cutting off Apple happening is impossible?

Keep on living in your world of iFantasy and iNsanity. While your name appears like a random event borne out of chaos theory.

What are you talking about? He has never been involved in litigation with Samsung. Ever. He was involved in litigation with Seagate in 1993, who, in 2011, bought Samsung's HDD division and the appears to have been some stock involved with Samsung ending up with around 9% on Seagate stock.

Which wasn't the questionDoc 2013 of this lawsuit. Page 12 of the PDF (page 2 of the actual write up.) Line 10 to 12. Asked by the Court whether “you or a family member or someone very close to you [has] ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness?” (Reporter’s Transcript (“RT”) 148:18-21)

No time limit. No requirement that the lawsuit would be related to Samsung. The only way out of this is that neither the court (that is the judge) nor lawyers did a follow up after he divulged details about the 2008 lawsuit. And even that is a tight squeeze seeing the other allegations against Hogan.

Don't try and jump into someone else's conversation unless you bother to read every post in it. You'll just look silly.

Uh, the word "EVER" is pretty clear. It is obvious to any native English speaker, at least int he US, that sentence means this: "HAVE YOU OR A FAMILY MEMBER OR SOMEONE VERY CLOSE TO YOU (AT ANY TIME) BEEN INVOLVED IN A LAWSUIT, EITHER AS A PLAINTIFF, A DEFENDANT, OR AS A WITNESS?" Perhaps "ever" means something different in some other language of place but it is completely unambiguous in the US. Here, let Google tell you, if you don't know how to use a dictionary.

Well done, you've established that 'ever' refers to an open-ended time frame. Gold star for that. When you've finished your celebrations, you can join the rest of the class and start thinking about the difference between timeframe and quantity.

I'll give you a helping hand to get you started:Alice, Bob, and Charlie were all involved in lawsuits in different years. Alice in 1982; Bob in 2004; Charlie in both 1982 and 2004. If a judge asks if anyone was involved in a lawsuit in the last 15 years, both Bob and Charlie would to answer yes. If the judge asked if anyone had ever been involved, everyone would have to say yes. In neither case would the wording require that anyone disclose how many lawsuits as ever simply governs the timeframe, not the quantity. Hence people who harp on aout '10 years' have a valid point (in the absence of further evidence), whereas those harping on about lies of omission have a somewhat harder case to make.

I love how you shift to quantity only after the 10 years thing is shot down. Regardless, I would say quantity is implied in that question, though not as clearly as timeframe.

However, it's not just that. Not only is Samsung the largest shareholder in Seagate,

Samsung got a 10 percent stake in Seagate only last year.

I agree that the foreman might still have a grudge against the executives who fired him and sued him two decades ago. But assessing that he carried this grudge against any firm who got business relationships with Seagate is just borderline psycho.Should we assume that the reason for which the foreman hasn't any Apple product is because there are Seagate hard drives in Macs?

Quote:

but the lawyer who sued Hogan, leading to his bankruptcy, has a link to this case.

From Groklaw:

"The lawyer who sued Mr. Hogan on behalf of Seagate back in 1993 is now married to a partner at Quinn Emanuel, the lawyers for Samsung."

So, Hogan is so obsessed about his previous case that he necessarily stalked the lawyer for two decades, discovered that he or she got married to somebody else, investigated on the spouse, discovered that the spouse was working for Quinn Emanuel and pledged absolute hatred for the firm of the spouse up to the point he would do anything to make them lose their case if he was called for jury duty for something involving them. And you take that as an established fact because Groklaw implied so.

And now, I'm asking you, where are the plans for the movie adaptation starring Glenn Close as Hogan, Michael Douglas as Seagate, Ann Heche as Samsung, and an infamous scene with a rabbit and boiling water?

This motion, contrary to Groklaw's daydream, shows actually that Samsung tries everything to dismiss the case, including grasping at straws to badmouth the foreman. Which suggests their lawyers must be desperate for arguments and have an even weaker case than previously assumed.

Quote:

Samsung have a real point, and Hogan could be in trouble... unless there is something wrong with the court transcript.

More significantly, the brief notes that Hogan disclosed being involved in only one lawsuit--failing to mention that he was sued by his former employer Seagate Technology, a company owned in part by Samsung. That lawsuit, which demanded Hogan pay back certain house payments that Seagate had assisted him with, ultimately caused Hogan and his wife to file for bankruptcy. "Mr. Hogan’s failure to disclose the Seagate suit raises issues of bias that Samsung should have been allowed to explore in questioning and that would have triggered a motion to strike for cause or a peremptory strike," write Samsung lawyers.

Uh, yeah. That is a fucking big omission.

Uh, yeah? Why? When was that lawsuit? When did Samsung get their 9.something% stake in Seagate? Before 1993? Or why would it matter otherwise?

This sounded really bad until it became clear that was 19 years ago. I sure as hell couldn't remember who the stakeholders were in a company I worked at 19 years ago, and I'd have to have one pretty huge grudge to care for that long. I doubt I know all the stakeholders at the company I am a part of now. Until this article I had no idea that Samsung owned any of Seagate, and I actually follow the HDD industry(and when did they acquire that, as others have pointed out? Pretty sure it was when Seagate bought their drive division just a couple years ago).

This seems like a desperate reach. Also, regardless of what he says, its virtually impossible to invalidate a verdict based on anything the jury does afterwards or are alleged to have done during the process once the case is decided. Or at least that's what I've read here and a few other places..

Thank you for pointing that out. Obviously people are incapable of reading. Samsung had its opportunity the question anyone they wanted to question. This was 19 years ago. He is not required to put forth any information older then 10 years and the opportunity was presented to ask these questions in which Samsung failed to do so.

I love how you shift to quantity only after the 10 years thing is shot down.

Since you love it so much, perhaps you'll point out when exactly I argued that Hogan was correct about the ten years. My first mention of the ten years (after having made several comments already, focussing on the quantity issue) was on page four I think, calling it a red herring. On page five I state that the timeframe isn't an issue for me, having always gone with the transcript which said 'ever.' But maybe you'll go through my comments and find something I missed/forgot/lied about/was asked by Samsung to conceal in order to later cause a mistrial.

Happy hunting.

Quote:

Regardless, I would say quantity is implied in that question, though not as clearly as timeframe.

We all know Apple's lawsuits are a joke and no reasonable judge or jury would ever uphold them, or even let come to trial. Then add the fact that the judge suppressed all evidence that would've favored Samsung, and the jury ignored any Samsung patents.

But the fact is an American jury and judicial system is not going to vote against Apple. This case should be dismissed, Samsung awarded damages for the mistrial, and have an impartial entity decide the case.

There will always be people who favor something over another. If you take the trial to your own country do you think Samsung would win because the jury is impartial there? No you would agree with the damages and US citizens would cry about how its unfair. If you take it to a 3rd party country and apple wins you would cry because they favor Apple in someway. Personally this patent war is stupid. Apple didn't start the patent war, but why stay out of it when Samsung is suing everyone and their dog too? Your arguments are invalid. Every single person on here upset because apple one some stupid patent war needs to get over it and realize that your almighty Samsung is also suing everyone. I love Samsung products and I love apply products. I've used both devices for mobile use and I prefer Apple but I don't mind Samsung either they both get the job done.

There was a time when companies knew that other companies were in violation of each others patents to some degree and it was good business to let this pass and continue on with their own business. One company I don't recall who decided oh lets sue everyone for using out patents and then guess what happened. Oh you sued me for 1 billion dollars well I just lost a billion dollars so I need to sue someone else to get my money back. AND THUS IT BEGAN.

not saying anything would let them pull the trigger and force a retrial if it went against them. Which brings us right back to today.

Which is exactly the kind of stunt Samsung has been pulling all along through the case, and pissing off the court.

Judge Koh has more important things to do that help Apple and Samsung come to a decision on patent royalties. As far as she is concerned, this whole thing never should have gone to court in the first place.

Samsung's continuous attempts to delay and extend the court case with amateur mistakes angered her all the way through the proceedings. Samsung pulls in 300 billion/year in revenue - they don't hire amateur lawyers and the justice system doesn't like it when professionals step in 2 days after the deadline to submit evidence, and try to add something that they used a year ago in another country over the exact same dispute.

If you know about something that will cause a miss-trial, you better raise it immediately. Because the court is not going to be happy when you tell them they have been wasting their time for two months while you "investigated the matter".

Its hard but not as hard as you make it out to be. I have worked on several trials that have been retried.

Every case of mistrial I have any involvement with was a result of prosecutorial misconduct-- something the lawyers, cops, or government has done wrong. I have never personally seen a mistrial because of a juror member bringing in prior knowledge. There was a case in Ohio I remember reading about where the jurors printed out the definition of a word as well as an article on the law in question, and there was a mistrial.

This tact is, as I stated, the much, much larger of the issue, and while I still haven't seen enough to persuade me that this is worthy of the standard required for mistrial. I'm still busy, so I've no time for any research, but I welcome any links to specific procedural errors.

I'm betting apple wishes that the juror would be as silent about the court case as he was about his previous court experience.

Same goes for samsung who wishes the juror keeps flapping his mouth in public, and made the motion for no communications with juror to prevent apple from telling the juror to stop flapping his big mouth.

He has a patent that could be the poster boy for bad patents. That is an uncontestable fact.

That's actually a fact( "he owns patents") mixed with opinion ("that could be the poster boy for bad patents). You need to tone down the rhetoric. So far you have one fact: he owns patents. That's all you have demonstrated. Again, not evidence of bias.

Quote:

He has a clear and obvious personal financial interest in this case.

Really, which patent of his did Samsung violate? If Samsung losing doesn't make him money directly, you have to actually show this, not just insinuate at it. How, exactly and precisely, does the outcome of this case modify or adapt case law in such a way as to improve the standing of this class of patent to generate profit? I don't think you understand that this case followed prior precedent in pretty much every instance.

Quote:

He has an obvious reason for bias.

No, he has a potential reason for bias. You've yet to demonstrate that he does. Again, you have implications, which is what I said before.

Thank you very much for not reading my earlier post and proving that you're not able to parse fact from emotion. I'll reiterate here: I hate the fact that Apple won. The fact is that their case was likely to win from the start, their position was more in tune with the law. But I believe the law should be changed. The fact that Samsung has to pay $1 billion is a TRAVESTY. But there's a difference between supporting Samsung's cause, and believing their rhetoric in the case. I support Samsung. That doesn't mean their legal reasoning is stronger. They'e wrong here. They haven't said much of value here, at all. That's it. Samsung's claims are simply not strong, legally speaking, without some further evidence.

Its hard but not as hard as you make it out to be. I have worked on several trials that have been retried.

Every case of mistrial I have any involvement with was a result of prosecutorial misconduct-- something the lawyers, cops, or government has done wrong. I have never personally seen a mistrial because of a juror member bringing in prior knowledge. There was a case in Ohio I remember reading about where the jurors printed out the definition of a word as well as an article on the law in question, and there was a mistrial.

This tact is, as I stated, the much, much larger of the issue, and while I still haven't seen enough to persuade me that this is worthy of the standard required for mistrial. I'm still busy, so I've no time for any research, but I welcome any links to specific procedural errors.

Well civil court is different than criminal which from the sounds of it is what you are involved with. I have worked on two and while I can't go into details it wasn't something the lawyers did. I didn't mind having to do these cases twice it was more money for me.

You answer to the best of your knowledge. My answer to that question, it would be "Yes, several times" and then one would presume they would ask about them. Answering only with a single case when clearly, from the question, they want a reasonably complete history, seems pretty disingenuous to me.

You've clearly never actually even been in the room when they've done a jury selection, much less been a part of one. The idea that they wanted a complete history is pretty laughable. They wanted examples of any cases that might give the person a bias, or any history of criminal charge against them, not a rundown of every lawsuit they've ever been in. He answered with the MOST RELATABLE CASE-- one where he was himself involved in a lawsuit regarding intellectual property law, on the side of the owner of the copyright. Despite a case that actually might give him bias, Samsung did not ask for his removal. At this point, the only thing this has shown is that Samsung's lawyers did even worse than I thought.

The other case is a RED HERRING. It's irrelevant. It's not a case that is germane, at all, to this trial. Unless, of course, you have evidence that he knew specifically that Samsung owned Seagate. Short of PROVING that he knew, what fucking point would there be in bringing it up. If he didn't know Samsung owned part of Seagate, how would that case affect his judgement? If it didn't affect his judgement, then why the fuck would it matter.

It's a bullshit argument, given what evidence they've shown. End of story.

Well civil court is different than criminal which from the sounds of it is what you are involved with. I have worked on two and while I can't go into details it wasn't something the lawyers did. I didn't mind having to do these cases twice it was more money for me.

Well, I'm willing to concede that our experiences may differ. I completely understand not getting into specifics, so all I can say is that we'll have to agree that it's not as simple as saying "see, he sorta/kinda has something that may or may not have biased him...if he knew about this in the first place.

The issue is the instructions, for me. I'll try to find and read the instructions tonight and come to a conclusion about them.

Or are you saying that the foreman is just One Very Angry Man who decided that anyone ever in contact or a business relationship with Seagate deserves his wrath?

I can't speak for him, and I don't personally have an issue with Samsung, but yeah, I can totally understand One Very Angry Man hating a company, and resenting any other company that either buys or works with the company I hate.

For decades.

Quote:

I’m assuming the foreman would have to be really mentally unstable to fucking blame Samsung for the shit that happened in 1993.

It's not about blaming Samsung for the actions of Seagate, it's about resenting a company with a financial stake in the company that sent me bankrupt.

Plus, he's not just a juror, he's the foreman. He's in a position to influence and colour the rest of the jury.

Quote:

It’s like the mere mentioning of Apple turns people into retards.

Yes! That's right! And that's from people that weren't bankrupted by an apple subsidiary! You don't see the correlation? You can see the behaviour with apple but don't think it's possible with another company?

He didn't lie. He was asked if he had been in a lawsuit. He said yes, one in 2008 and went into detail as requested. They then moved on. Someone said the guy has been involved in 3 court cases, so he clearly ahd choices as to which one to speak about. He spoke about the most recent.

Interesting. Upon reading the transcript, I have concluded that he didn't lie. He was not asked to list all lawsuits, just whether he had previously been involved in a lawsuit.

Yeah. But it's interesting he didn't list the most relevant case in his past.

Lied by omission, is still lying (you know, that "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" thing).

The point of the voire dire is precisely to weed out unsuitable jurors. The point of asking about lawsuits is to uncover biases and conflicts of interest. Hogan appears to have -- somehow 8-P -- replied to the lawsuits question with reference to an irrelevant lawsuit, instead of the relevant one. In light of his subsequent comments to the press, this raises the remarkably strong likelihood that this was deliberate evasion and misdirection, intended to mislead the court.

It would be foolish to read too much into it. Besides which, what have said has been concerned primarily with Koh's instructions in the transcript, not Hogan's flawed recollection later.

On its own that statement wouldnt be enough, however it is the aggregate of all the things which transpired and been said, which Samsung has used to cast doubt on the fairness of the verdict, which many (myself included) agree with.

Especially when you consider the sums involved. Wouldnt you want to do your best to make sure you got as fair possible trial, and werent getting shanked out of 1 Billion+ dollars (nearly 2 Billion with Apples additional demands) by some pro patent guy potentially "out for justice" and the "high point of his life" out to make sure "not just a slap on the wrist" etc.?

Quote:

Have you been dreaming about this discussion? Because I certainly haven't argued that in the real world. I disagree with the accusation the he committed a lie of omission, but that's a far cry from arguing that he hasn't case doubt on the verdict.

Thats kind of the meat and bones of this discussion, whether his actions i.e. omitting lawsuits, comments about ignoring court instructions have cast doubt on the verdict.You jumped on the point that he wasn't necessarily wrong by not disclosing anything (according to your understanding of english grammar). This is what I disagreed with. You seemed to be using this to excuse him.

Quote:

Yes, that's why trials are decided by what goes on in a court, not what is recollected later in an interview.

Verdicts are given based on what is presented in court. In many cases there is right to appeal these verdicts. If since the initial verdict new evidence is gathered that may change the verdict, and the appeal route is chosen, it may be submitted and the case reconsidered. This new evidence may come from a recorded interview.

Quote:

If that's true, then you'll have no problems finding a comment where I use the ten year quote to defend Mr Hogan... Incidentally I haven't justified the withholding of facts, I've argued that they weren't asked for in the first place.

Sorry for not searching the specific comments, but you know you have been arguing the whole time around the fact that Ever=/=every etc, which is related to the 10 year argument/comment from Hogan, and that is what a lot of people disagree with.

Quote:

Nothing is evident yet.

It is evident that Samsung is arguing grounds for mistrial based in part at least on Hogan and his jury cohorts' recorded statements made outside of court.

Quote:

True. Not that it makes any difference to the substance of the argument.

The strength of your argument was at least in part based on your allegedly superior understanding of the English language......

In any case I think theres a case of not seeing the wood for the trees here: the wider issue is do these facts and concerns cast a doubt on the fairness of the verdict?- When you have Jurors on record stating that they were leaning one way, until the only(?) patent holder in the group, who they made foreman, led them the right way?- Whom allowed them to "not get bogged down".. and subsequently enabled the jury decided on 700+ patents in 30 minutes (!!!) - You have the foreman on record that he ignored court instructions, did not look at prior art etc.?

Even disregarding the lawsuit anyone with knowledge of these facts and faced with paying out 1 Billion+ would want a retrial.

Imagine you were a secondary school teacher, and in your class you have a tween girl who secretly has a huge crush on you, who hangs back after class one day for extra tuition. Youre oblivious and innocently agree.During this time she makes a pass at you which you refuse. Hurt, angry and confused, she goes home crying, mommy asks what happened was it something at school? Girl says yes Teacher B tried to abuse me.A year later you are due for trial, and it comes to your attention, that one of the Jurors was a victim some 19 years ago of the reverse- she actually got molested, but teacher was never found guilty at the time.

Theres no saying that she hasnt gotten over it or bears a grudge and seeking some form of justice and "to protect others from same fate" after all this time.But would you agree that she posed a potential risk to the impartiality of your verdict if on the jury?Or if you learnt of her history after the fact, and were pronounced guilty, and you learn that she was leading the jury- would you want a retrial?